Is there any remotely plausible or ethical way for the media to simply ignore all acts of terrorism though? How would that work in response to attacks like Oklahoma City or 9/11 or the recent Vegas shooting?

Is there any remotely plausible or ethical way for the media to simply ignore all acts of terrorism though?

In a word?

NOPE.

We need to be informed about what’s going on in the world around us, but I haven’t the slightest idea how to separate the dissemination of info from the opportunistic sensationalism and fear mongering that the media has turned into business as usual.

I agree: had he been a Muslim, or had he been black, or really anything but a white man, he’d have made the national news. But he would also have had a greater chance of making the national news if he had targeted an international airport, and not Asheville’s rinky dink regional airport. There is a clear racial bias in reporting, no doubt—but isn’t there also a bias against regional airports? I’m just saying: if a white guy had attempted to do the same thing at JFK or LAX, it probably would have had more widespread coverage. I’m not excusing the media on this, rather I’m pointing out that their bias favors white people and it favors certain locations.

Other thing is this: it is likely there are a lot more attempted domestic terror attack than we ever hear about. Bush and Obama both were cagey about quoting numbers, and govvies I have known suggested stuff like this happens with some regularity (where they are caught before a successful attack).

Is there any remotely plausible or ethical way for the media to simply ignore all acts of terrorism though?

Play it straight?

“Last night in Las Vegas a lone male murdered 58 people at a music festival, and wounded another 500. Police found the man dead at the scene.” The end. Don’t ignore it, but don’t sensationalise, keep the murderer - along with his motives and associations - anonymous, and don’t speculate.^

Instead I’ve been watching CNN for the last couple of days. Today’s effort to squeeze a bit more juice out of this lemon has been to breathlessly describe clarification of the timeline as “crucial”, as if it makes a damn bit of difference whether Jesus Campos was murdered before or after the murderer opened fire on the folks down below.

As an aside, is it just me, or has CNN become to news what MTV is to music? One doesn’t have any news, and the other doesn’t have any music.

^ I’m not sure whether that should read “a lone male” or “a lone white male”. I think there are valid arguments in both directions.

Aw man so the TSA FINALLY caught a terrorist and they had to keep quiet about it? I thought after this long with out finding one they would be busting out the champagne and ordering cakes with “Terrorist #1” on it.

Don’t ignore it, but don’t sensationalise, keep the murderer - along with his motives and associations - anonymous, and don’t speculate.

That isn’t necessarily constructive either, because politicians and pundits (not to mention people on social media) will sensationalize and speculate no matter what. So if the media doesn’t report details like “the shooter was a white nationalist Trump supporter” then the public narrative can easily become “this scary terrorist is exactly why we need to ban all Muslims.”

I’m not suggesting that terrorists have to be ignored by law enforcement.

I’m simply saying that the media ignoring this failed attempt is overall a good thing since it removes one crucial element of causing terror: attention.

I’m fully aware that this doesn’t solve any crimes, doesn’t prevent the next attempt and doesn’t punish any terrorists. I’m simply stating that removing media attention from these cases is helping in not spreading the panic and terror.

I don’t think it would work, because journalists can’t just ignore the missing buildings in lower Manhattan. But the opposite extreme, chanting “never forget,” only means Bin Laden’s victory is endless.

I sadly have to agree. There’s no magic solution that would fit every situation.
But while an attack such as 9/11 is, understandably, impossible to keep out of the media, the failed attempt in the article is perfectly ‘ignorable’. And by ignoring it, the media actually helped in not spreading terror.

I’m simply saying that the media ignoring this failed attempt is overall a good thing since it removes one crucial element of causing terror: attention.

The problem there is that it is ignoring the context of American white supremacy.

This story was not ignored in order to limit terrorism; it was ignored because the would-be bomber was white. Next week, if a brown kid is found with an old firecracker somewhere within the vicinity of an airport, it will be front-page news.